Ref. No. 171-6694 Phase 2 November 23, 217 Mr. David Quilichini, Vice President Fares & Co. Developments Inc. 31 Place Keelson Sales Centre DARTMOUTH NS B2Y C1 Sent Via Email to David@faresinc.com RE: Traffic Impact Analysis, Evaluation of / / Place Intersection, Trips Generated by Development Site Build-out Dear Mr. Quilichini: This is the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that you have requested to determine if the / / Place intersection will be able to accommodate the estimated peak hourly trips that will be generated by the proposed build-out of the Development. Background - Planning for the development has been on-going for more than 1 years with proposed land uses being revised from time to time as the development evolves based on market trends. The existing occupied land use (November 217) and the proposed land use at site build-out are included in Table 1. Table 1 - Land Use Comparisons - Proposed King s Wharf Development Study Residential (Units) Office (SF) Land Use Retail (SF) Hotel (Rooms) Marina (Slips) Existing Occupied 34 6, 1,9 - - Land Uses 1 Proposed Build-Out Land Uses 1,,148 18, 2 1 NOTE: 1. Information provided by David Quilichini, Vice President, Fares & Co. Developments Inc.. November 7, 217. Estimation of 227 Background Volumes - AM and PM peak period turning movement counts at the / / Place intersection, obtained on Wednesday, October 2, 217, are tabulated with peak hours shown as shaded areas in Table A-1, Appendix A. Tabulated peak hourly volumes at the intersection with existing trips removed are included in Table A-2. The following peak hourly volumes are illustrated diagrammatically on Figure A-1, Appendix A: Boxes A and B - 217 AM and PM peak hourly volumes. Boxes C and D - 217 AM and PM peak hourly volumes, with existing trips removed. Boxes E and F - Projected 227 background volumes based on a.% annual increase in through volumes on for an assumed 1 year build-out for the site. 1 Spectacle Lake Drive, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada B3B 1X7 Telephone: 92-83-99 ~ Fax: 92-83-164 ~ www.wsp.com
Traffic Impact Analysis, Evaluation of / / Place Intersection, Trips Generated by Development Site Build-out Page 2 Trip Generation Proposed Build-Out Land Uses - AM and PM peak hour trip generation, th prepared using published data from Trip Generation, 9 Edition, are included in Table 2. Trip generation equations are considered to be appropriate for residential and commercial land uses, while average trip generation rates have been used for hotel, office and marina land uses. Discussions with Paul Burgess, MEng., P. Eng., concerning the appropriate percentage of nonvehicle trips for the Dartmouth Cove area, concluded that a large percentage of site trips would be made by transit, bicycle, walking, or other non-auto modes so that % of site generated trips estimated using ITE published trip generation rates for this area would be considered non-auto trips. The 211 Census data revealed that % of trips made in the Regional Centre are non-auto trips, and the HRM Integrated Mobility Plan (IMP) has set a target of 6% non-auto trips by 231. Since the large mixed use development will have significant on-site synergies, synergistic relations with other existing and planned developments in the Dartmouth core area near the site, as well as having excellent accessibility to transit and the Halifax Harbour Ferry, % of site generated trips have been assumed to be non-auto trips. A sensitivity analysis has also been completed for 4% non-auto trips. Land Use 1 High Rise Apt (Land Use 222) Mid-Rise Apt (Land Use 223) Hotel (Land Use 31) Marina (Land Use 42) Office 4 (Land Use 71) Commercial (Land Use 82) Table 2 - Trip Generation Estimates for King s Wharf - Proposed 217 Land Use 1 2 Number Trip Generation Rates Estimate of Trips Generated Units 3 AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 11 Units 4 Units 2 Rooms 1 Slips.148 KGFA 18. KGLA In Out In Out In Out In Out Equations from Pages 376 and 377 82 246 222 142 Equations from Pages 387 and 388 47 14 1 76.31.22.31.29 62 44 62 8.3..11.8 3 11 8 1.37.19.2 1.24 69 1 13 62 Equations from Pages 162 and 163 138 8 426 462 Total Estimated Trips for Full Site Development 41 494 839 88 % Trip Reduction for Non-Auto Trips 6 21 247 42 44 Adjusted Trip Generation Estimates with % Non-Auto Trip Reduction 2 247 419 44 4% Trip Reduction for Non-Auto Trips 7 16 198 336 323 Adjusted Trip Generation Estimates with 4% Non-Auto Trip Reduction 241 296 3 48 NOTES: 1. Trip generation rates are vehicles per hour per unit for AM and PM peak hours per unit. Rates and equations are th for indicated Land Use Codes, Trip Generation, 9 Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 212. 2. Vehicles per hour for peak hours. 3. Units are as indicated; KGFA is 1 square feet gross floor area ; KGLA is 1 square feet gross leasable area. 4. Since the proposed office space is significantly less than the average sized facility published in Trip Generation, 9 th Edition (21, SF and 222, SF) and the regression curves would produce illogical trip-end estimates, average published AM and PM peak hour rates have been used.. Shopping centre trip generation equations have been used for commercial (retail, restaurants, etc.) land use. Since a large percentage of trips to / from a shopping center are usually made by vehicle, the equations would probable over estimate trips to the location during the peak hours, however, the reduction for non-vehicle trips (Note 6) should result in reasonable trip estimates for this land use. 6. It has been recognized that additional synergies between King Wharf and other Downtown Dartmouth developments, as well as increased walking, transit and ferry trips by residents of over the project build-out during the next 1 to 1 years, justify a % reduction from trip generation estimates prepared using published rates 7. A sensitivity analysis has been completed to evaluate the impacts with a 4% non-vehicle trip reduction. WSP Canada Inc. November 23, 217
Traffic Impact Analysis, Evaluation of / / Place Intersection, Trips Generated by Development Site Build-out Page 3 When % of site generated trips are considered to be non-auto trips, it is estimated that the development will generate 447 two-way vehicle trips (2 entering and 247 exiting) during the AM peak hour and 823 two-way vehicle trips (419 entering and 44 exiting) during the PM peak hour. When 4% of site generated trips are considered to be non-auto trips, it is estimated that the development will generate 37 two-way vehicle trips (241 entering and 296 exiting) during the AM peak hour and 988 two-way vehicle trips (3 entering and 48 exiting) during the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution - The following trip distribution has been used throughout the analyses: north of the site - 4% west of the site - 2% south of the site - 4%, Assignment % Non-Auto Mode - Assigned peak hourly site generated trips for % non-auto analysis are illustrated diagrammatically on Figure A-2, Boxes C and D, with projected 227 volumes that include % of site generated trips illustrated diagrammatically on Figure A-2, Boxes E and F. Assignment 4% Non-Auto Mode - Assigned peak hourly site generated trips for the sensitivity analysis with 4% non-auto mode are illustrated diagrammatically on Figure A-3, Boxes C and D, with projected 227 volumes that include 6% of site generated trips illustrated diagrammatically on Figure A-3, Boxes E and F. Level of Service Analysis - The level or quality of performance of an intersection in terms of traffic movement is determined by a level of service (LOS) analysis. LOS for intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and increased travel time. LOS criteria are stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle which includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. LOS Signalized Intersections Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) Table 3 - Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Intersections LOS Description A less than 1. Very low delay; most vehicles do not stop (Excellent) B between 1. and 2. Higher delay; more vehicles stop (Very Good) C between 2. and 3. Higher level of congestion; number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through intersection without stopping (Good) D between 3. and. Congestion becomes noticeable; vehicles must sometimes wait through more than one red light; many vehicles stop (Satisfactory) E between. and 8. Vehicles must often wait through more than one red light; considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay F greater than 8. This level is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers; occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection (Unacceptable) The HRM Guidelines for Preparation of Transportation Impact Studies indicates the following critical limits for intersection evaluation: 1. the v/c ratio of an intersection exceeds.8; 2. the v/c ratio of a though movement or shared through / turning movement exceeds.8; 3. the v/c ratio of an exclusive turning movement exceeds 1.; 4. an exclusive turning movement generates queues which exceed the available turning lane storage space. WSP Canada Inc. November 23, 217
Traffic Impact Analysis, Evaluation of / / Place Intersection, Trips Generated by Development Site Build-out Page 4 Synchro 9. software has been used for performance evaluation of AM and PM peak hourly volumes for the / / Place intersection. LOS analysis sheets are included in Appendix A and results are summarized in Table 4. The following intersection and traffic signal conditions were used in the analyses: Existing intersection configuration; 9 second actuated cycle, except 1 seconds during PM peak with 4% non-auto trips; Existing signal phasing, except a left turn phase has been added for southbound during PM peak with 4% non-auto trips: The following analyses have been completed: Existing 217 volumes including existing site development (Pages A-6 and A-7) Projected 227 volumes; full site development; % non-auto trips (Pages A-8 and A-9) Projected 227 volumes; full site development ; 4% non-auto trips (Pages A-1 and A-11). LOS Criteria Table 4 - LOS for / / Place Intersection Control Delay (sec/veh), v/c Ratio, and 9% Queue (m) by Intersection Movement EB-LTR WB-LT WB-R NB-LTR SB-L SB-TR - Existing 217 Volumes - Existing Intersection (Page A-6) Intersection LOS Delay 1.7 13.9.8 6.4 6.7 6.7 7. v/c.7.21.12.24.7.31 - Queue 4.2 9.9 4.7 1.6 4.6 21. - - Projected 227 Volumes with Site - % Non-Auto Trips (Page A-8) Delay 11. 16.6 4.7 8.8 1.7 9.6 9.8 v/c.14.44.22.39.26.44 - Queue 9.4 23.1 7.9 23.9 12.2 29.7 - - Projected 227 Volumes with Site - Sensitivity Analysis - 4% Non-Auto Trips (Page A-1) Delay 11.7 17.3 4.4 9.6 12.6 1. 1.7 v/c.14.49.24.42.33.46 - Queue 11. 28.6 8.6 27. 16.2 33. - - Existing 217 Volumes - Existing Intersection (Page A-7) Delay 12. 1. 6.8 7.2 6.8.8 7.4 v/c.28.14.9.43.9.18 - Queue 12.6 7.9 4.6 33.1 4. 13.3 - - Projected 227 Volumes with Site - % Non-Auto Trips (Page A-9) Delay 22.8 38.6 12. 12.7 44.1 9. 18.4 v/c.38.74.36..79.19 - Queue 32.1 9.7 22.9 84.6 68.8 27.6 - - Projected 227 Volumes with Site - Sensitivity Analysis - 4% Non-Auto Trips (Page A-11) Delay 26. 48.9 12.4 31.8 3.6 1.9 28.4 v/c.4.83.38.84.7.2 - Queue 42.7 94.3 28.9 123. 7. 27.6 - WSP Canada Inc. November 23, 217
Traffic lmpact Analysis, Evaluation of / / Place Intersection, Trips Generated by Development Site Build-out Page Summary Level of Service Analyses - Level of service (LOS) analysis (Table 4) f or the Alderney Drive / / Place intersection indicate the following:. The intersection will be in compliance with HRM v/c ratio limits for both the % non-auto and 4% non-auto sensitivity analyses;. The intersection is expected to provide good overall performance for projected 227 volumes with added trips for both the % non-auto analysis and the 4o/o non-auto sensitivity analysis. Summary - 1. The proposed build-out of will included 1 residential units,,148 SF of office, 18, SF of retail, a 2 room hotel and 1 marine slips. 2. When % of site generated trips are considered to be non-auto trips, it is estimated that the development will generate 447 two-way vehicle trips (2 entering and 247 exiting) during the AM peak hour and 823 two-way vehicle trips (419 entering and44 exiting) during the PM peak hour. 3. For the sensitivity analysis when 4% of site generated trips are considered to be non-auto trips, it is estimated that the development will generate 37 two-way vehicle trips (241 entering and 296 exiting) during the AM peak hour and 988 two-way vehicle trips (3 entering and 48 exiting) during the PM peak hour. 4. Level of service (LOS) analyses for the / / Place intersection indicate the intersection will be within HRM acceptable limits for both the % nonauto analysis and the 4o/o non-auto sensitivity analysis. The intersection is expected to provide good overall performance for projected227 volumes with added trips for both the % nonauto analysis and the 4% non-auto sensitivity analysis. Conclusion -. Trip generation, trip assignment, and level of service analyses indicate that the / / Place intersection will operate within HRM guidelines and will continue to provide good overall performance during227 while accommodating the estimated peak hourly trips that will be generated by the proposed build-out of the Development. lf you have any questions, please contact me by Email to ken.obrien@wsp.com or telephone 92-42-7747. Original Signed Original Signed Ken O'Brien, P. Eng. Senior Traffic Engineer WSP Canada lnc. WSP Canada Inc. November 23,217
Appendix A Traffic Volume Data Page A 1 Table A-1 I H G @ / J K L Ped 3 Ped 4 Ped 2 Ped 1 F E D Dartmouth, NS Wednesday, October 2, 217 A B C AM Peak Period Volume Data Time Northbound Approach Westbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Total Vehicles A B C D E F G H I J K L 7: 7:1 2 8 4 1 6 3 1 1 1 1 24 7:1 7:3 88 3 8 3 4 2 148 1 1 1 29 7:3 7:4 2 96 4 1 4 14 1 2 1 261 7:4 8: 14 1 6 4 1 6 141 2 1 1 276 8: 8:1 2 116 2 16 4 8 123 4 2 287 8:1 8:3 91 3 11 13 13 13 3 2 2 31 8:3 8:4 2 1 6 8 7 9 1 148 6 4 2 1 33 8:4 9: 87 9 9 4 8 9 94 4 4 1 234 4 411 12 41 2 4 34 6 18 12 4 6 1167 7: 8: 4 373 8 23 9 2 1 79 4 2 3 1 8: 9: 4 394 Ped 1 2 44 2 Ped 2 38 37 18 Ped 3 2 1 Ped 4 1 112 Total Peds 7: 8: 7 7 16 2 32 8: 9: 1 7 1 27 PM Peak Period Volume Data Time Northbound Approach Westbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Total Vehicles A B C D E F G H I J K L 16: 16:1 2 213 12 2 1 88 1 1 3 4 346 16:1 16:3 188 11 6 12 7 81 11 2 7 33 16:3 16:4 2 17 6 7 2 11 7 87 1 1 4 3 31 16:4 17: 1 18 6 7 2 9 3 81 2 3 7 36 17: 17:1 2 29 11 8 2 4 94 2 14 6 12 369 17:1 17:3 1 21 12 3 7 1 83 2 8 6 7 3 17:3 17:4 1 149 4 7 6 62 3 4 2 23 17:4 18: 114 6 2 3 2 7 4 2 3 1 2 196 6 76 3 2 11 31 3 34 7 3 21 29 133 16: 17: 71 3 22 1 37 22 337 9 34 14 21 1297 17: 18: 4 673 34 18 14 2 33 293 9 3 17 23 1168 Ped 1 Ped 2 Ped 3 Ped 4 Total Peds 16: 17: 7 28 29 1 6 17: 18: 9 6 16 31 * Count completed by WSP WSP Canada Inc. October 217
Appendix A Traffic Volume Data Page A 2 Table A-2 I H G @ / Non Trail Traffic Removed J K L Ped 3 Ped 4 Ped 2 Ped 1 F E D Dartmouth, NS Wednesday, October 2, 217 A B C AM Peak Period Volume Data Time Northbound Approach Westbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Total Vehicles A B C D E F G H I J K L 7: 7:1 2 8 1 1 1 239 7:1 7:3 88 2 148 1 1 24 7:3 7:4 2 96 1 1 14 1 2 1 244 7:4 8: 14 2 141 2 1 1 21 8: 8:1 2 116 1 123 4 2 23 8:1 8:3 91 2 13 3 1 2 27 8:3 8:4 2 1 1 1 1 148 6 4 1 264 8:4 9: 87 1 94 4 4 19 4 411 1 1 1 6 18 12 1 6 12 7: 8: 4 373 3 3 79 4 3 974 8: 9: 4 394 Ped 1 2 1 1 Ped 2 3 18 Ped 3 2 1 1 Ped 4 1 969 Total Peds 7: 8: 7 7 16 2 32 8: 9: 1 7 1 27 PM Peak Period Volume Data Time Northbound Approach Westbound Approach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Total Vehicles A B C D E F G H I J K L 16: 16:1 2 213 88 1 1 4 318 16:1 16:3 188 1 81 11 7 293 16:3 16:4 2 17 4 2 87 1 1 3 279 16:4 17: 1 18 1 1 81 2 3 7 276 17: 17:1 2 29 1 2 94 2 14 12 336 17:1 17:3 1 21 1 83 2 8 7 33 17:3 17:4 1 149 1 62 3 2 223 17:4 18: 114 4 2 3 2 17 6 76 6 6 34 7 3 29 1194 16: 17: 71 4 337 9 34 21 1166 17: 18: 4 673 1 4 293 9 3 23 137 Ped 1 Ped 2 Ped 3 Ped 4 Total Peds 16: 17: 7 28 29 1 6 17: 18: 9 6 16 31 * Count completed by WSP WSP Canada Inc. October 217
Observed 217 AM and Volumes Observed 217 AM and Traffic Volumes without Development Trips Projected 227 AM and Background Traffic Volumes without Development Trips A 2 4 1 C 1 2 1 E 1 2 1 62 2 6 3 61 9 2 6 7 62 2 9 6 46 1 41 42 42 41 41 44 43 43 4 2 4 1 B 8 2 6 3 2 3 D 1 3 3 F 6 1 3 3 38 34 3 4 3 34 38 36 36 39 82 3 76 8 8 76 76 84 8 8 3 1 2 8 6 PAGE A-3 1 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Observed 217 Weekday AM and Traffic Volumes; 217 AM and Volumes without Development; and, Background 227 AM and Traffic Volumes without Development Figure A-1 November 217
Projected 227 AM and Background Traffic Volumes without Development Trips Assignment of AM and PM Generated Trips % non auto mode Projected 227 AM and Traffic Volumes with Development Trips (% non auto) A 1 2 1 C 4 49 4 E 74 1 4 62 2 9 6 8 8 99 7 2 9 8 699 44 43 43 99 8 8 39 8 43 1 99 49 99 247 2 99 49 99 247 2 B 6 84 1 3 3 D 81 84 F 91 149 3 84 3 36 36 39 168 168 161 33 36 168 6 84 8 8 162 167 167 12 8 167 972 162 81 161 167 81 166 1 44 419 PAGE A-4 414 419 Traffic Impact Analysis Background 227 AM and Traffic Volumes without Development; AM and Trip Assignment with % non-auto modes; and, 227 AM and Volumes with Trips (% non auto) Figure A-2 November 217
Projected 227 AM and Background Traffic Volumes without Development Trips Assignment of AM and PM Generated Trips 4% non auto mode Projected 227 AM and Traffic Volumes with Development Trips (4% non auto) A 1 2 1 C 48 9 48 E 63 84 1 48 62 2 9 6 96 96 119 716 2 9 11 719 44 43 43 118 97 97 8 97 43 32 118 9 119 296 241 118 9 119 296 246 B 6 1 3 3 D 97 11 11 F 17 166 3 11 3 36 36 39 21 21 194 66 36 21 89 84 8 8 194 21 21 134 8 21 16 194 97 194 199 97 199 3 PAGE A- 1 48 49 3 Traffic Impact Analysis Background 227 AM and Traffic Volumes without Development; AM and Trip Assignment with 4% non-auto modes; and, 227 AM and Volumes with Trips (4% non auto) Figure A-3 November 217
Traffic Impact Analysis Page A-6 1: & / 217 Volumes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 4 2 4 41 1 3 6 2 Future Volume (vph) 1 4 2 4 41 1 3 6 2 Satd. Flow (prot) 1776 1823 161 361 1789 361 Flt Permitted.81.788.948.486 Satd. Flow (perm) 146 1484 161 3379 91 361 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 43 4 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 6 43 462 38 636 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Total Split (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4..... Total Lost Time (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7.9.9.9 Act Effct Green (s) 7.7 7.7 7.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 Actuated g/c Ratio.21.21.21.7.7.7 v/c Ratio.7.21.12.24.7.31 Control Delay 1.7 13.9.8 6.4 6.7 6.7 Queue Delay...... Total Delay 1.7 13.9.8 6.4 6.7 6.7 LOS B B A A A A Approach Delay 1.7 1.7 6.4 6.7 Approach LOS B B A A Queue Length th (m).8 3.3. 8. 1.1 11. Queue Length 9th (m) 4.2 9.9 4.7 1.6 4.6 21. Internal Link Dist (m) 118. 234.4 124. 184.9 Turn Bay Length (m) 2. 2. Base Capacity (vph) 1316 1338 1447 3364 911 34 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio.2..3.14.4.18 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 36.3 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:.31 Intersection Signal Delay: 7. Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 1 Splits and Phases: 1: & / WSP Canada Inc. Synchro 9 Report November 217
Traffic Impact Analysis Page A-7 1: & / 217 Volumes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 2 3 2 1 3 76 3 3 34 Future Volume (vph) 3 2 3 2 1 3 76 3 3 34 Satd. Flow (prot) 177 1819 161 33 1789 371 Flt Permitted.8.731.93.319 Satd. Flow (perm) 124 1377 161 3386 61 371 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 33 3 7 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 38 33 869 33 38 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Total Split (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4..... Total Lost Time (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7.9.9.9 Act Effct Green (s) 8. 8. 8. 23. 23. 23. Actuated g/c Ratio.2.2.2.6.6.6 v/c Ratio.28.14.9.43.9.18 Control Delay 12. 1. 6.8 7.2 6.8.8 Queue Delay...... Total Delay 12. 1. 6.8 7.2 6.8.8 LOS B B A A A A Approach Delay 12. 11.2 7.2.9 Approach LOS B B A A Queue Length th (m) 3. 1.9. 17.6 1. 6.4 Queue Length 9th (m) 12.6 7.9 4.6 33.1 4. 13.3 Internal Link Dist (m) 118. 234.4 124. 184.9 Turn Bay Length (m) 2. 2. Base Capacity (vph) 129 116 136 332 9 33 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio.7.3.2.26.6.11 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 39.2 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:.43 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.4 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization.% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 1 Splits and Phases: 1: & / WSP Canada Inc. Synchro 9 Report November 217
Traffic Impact Analysis Page A-8 1: & / 227 with development and % non-auto modes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 4 99 49 99 43 8 8 9 2 Future Volume (vph) 1 4 99 49 99 43 8 8 9 2 Satd. Flow (prot) 1846 1823 161 3496 1789 361 Flt Permitted.91.762.948.442 Satd. Flow (perm) 169 143 161 3314 832 361 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 18 33 Lane Group Flow (vph) 9 161 18 9 92 669 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Total Split (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4..... Total Lost Time (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7.9.9.9 Act Effct Green (s) 1.3 1.3 1.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 Actuated g/c Ratio.26.26.26.43.43.43 v/c Ratio.14.44.22.39.26.44 Control Delay 11. 16.6 4.7 8.8 1.7 9.6 Queue Delay...... Total Delay 11. 16.6 4.7 8.8 1.7 9.6 LOS B B A A B A Approach Delay 11. 11.8 8.8 9.7 Approach LOS B B A A Queue Length th (m) 2.4 7.9. 11.3 3.6 14.7 Queue Length 9th (m) 9.4 23.1 7.9 23.9 12.2 29.7 Internal Link Dist (m) 118. 234.4 124. 184.9 Turn Bay Length (m) 2. 2. Base Capacity (vph) 142 121 138 3249 816 3491 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio.4.13.8.17.11.19 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 4.3 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:.44 Intersection Signal Delay: 9.8 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 1 Splits and Phases: 1: & / WSP Canada Inc. Synchro 9 Report November 217
Traffic Impact Analysis Page A-9 1: & / 227 with % non-auto modes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 84 3 166 81 167 8 167 168 36 Future Volume (vph) 3 84 3 166 81 167 8 167 168 36 Satd. Flow (prot) 189 1823 161 348 1789 371 Flt Permitted.849.722.93.216 Satd. Flow (perm) 14 136 161 3322 47 371 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 16 14 38 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 162 268 182 17 183 396 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Total Split (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4..... Total Lost Time (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7.9.9.9 Act Effct Green (s) 2.7 2.7 2.7 44. 44. 44. Actuated g/c Ratio.27.27.27.7.7.7 v/c Ratio.38.74.36..79.19 Control Delay 22.8 38.6 12. 12.7 44.1 9. Queue Delay...... Total Delay 22.8 38.6 12. 12.7 44.1 9. LOS C D B B D A Approach Delay 22.8 27.9 12.7 2.4 Approach LOS C C B C Queue Length th (m) 17.3 3.8 8.8 44. 18.8 13.1 Queue Length 9th (m) 32.1 9.7 22.9 84.6 #68.8 27.6 Internal Link Dist (m) 118. 234.4 124. 184.9 Turn Bay Length (m) 2. 2. Base Capacity (vph) 678 86 749 1911 232 238 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio.24.46.24..79.19 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 77.9 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:.79 Intersection Signal Delay: 18.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 1 # 9th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: & / WSP Canada Inc. Synchro 9 Report November 217
Traffic Impact Analysis Page A-1 1: & / 227 with development and 4% non-auto modes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 48 119 9 118 43 97 11 9 2 Future Volume (vph) 1 48 119 9 118 43 97 11 9 2 Satd. Flow (prot) 18 1823 161 3482 1789 361 Flt Permitted.921.78.948.43 Satd. Flow (perm) 1717 1428 161 331 819 361 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 128 41 Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 193 128 77 11 669 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Total Split (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4..... Total Lost Time (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7.9.9.9 Act Effct Green (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 16.6 16.6 16.6 Actuated g/c Ratio.28.28.28.41.41.41 v/c Ratio.14.49.24.42.33.46 Control Delay 11.7 17.3 4.4 9.6 12.6 1. Queue Delay...... Total Delay 11.7 17.3 4.4 9.6 12.6 1. LOS B B A A B B Approach Delay 11.7 12.2 9.6 1.8 Approach LOS B B A B Queue Length th (m) 2.9 9.9. 12.3 4.7 1.6 Queue Length 9th (m) 11. 28.6 8.6 27. 16.2 33. Internal Link Dist (m) 118. 234.4 124. 184.9 Turn Bay Length (m) 2. 2. Base Capacity (vph) 1436 1193 139 3179 788 3428 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio..16.9.18.14.2 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 4.9 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:.49 Intersection Signal Delay: 1.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 1 Splits and Phases: 1: & / WSP Canada Inc. Synchro 9 Report November 217
Traffic Impact Analysis Page A-11 1: & / 227 with 4% non-auto modes Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 3 11 3 199 97 199 8 21 21 36 Future Volume (vph) 3 11 3 199 97 199 8 21 21 36 Satd. Flow (prot) 1818 1821 161 3471 1789 371 Flt Permitted.811.687.93.14 Satd. Flow (perm) 1489 1294 161 338 196 371 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 12 132 36 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 181 321 216 193 218 396 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 8 4 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 6 2 Total Split (s) 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 1. 6. Total Lost Time (s) 6.7 6.7 6.7.9 4..9 Act Effct Green (s) 26.7 26.7 26.7 34.4 1. 49.6 Actuated g/c Ratio.3.3.3.39.8.6 v/c Ratio.4.83.38.84.7.2 Control Delay 26. 48.9 12.4 31.8 3.6 1.9 Queue Delay...... Total Delay 26. 48.9 12.4 31.8 3.6 1.9 LOS C D B C C B Approach Delay 26. 34.2 31.8 17.9 Approach LOS C C C B Queue Length th (m) 24. 4.7 11.4 9.7 2.8 18.2 Queue Length 9th (m) 42.7 #94.3 28.9 123. #7. 27.6 Internal Link Dist (m) 118. 234.4 124. 184.9 Turn Bay Length (m) 2. 2. Base Capacity (vph) 77 49 694 17 314 2222 Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio.31.6.31.73.69.18 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 1 Actuated Cycle Length: 89.2 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio:.84 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 1 # 9th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: & / WSP Canada Inc. Synchro 9 Report November 217